Orders of the Day

Tim Loughton: My hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way. In dealing with the important subject of democratic health, he has said much about the needs of old people. Will he bear in mind that young people also feel very detached from decisions made in their communities? There seems to be a common misconception that all young people need is a skateboard park and a pat on the head, and they will be fine. Actually, they have some very smart ideas about how their communities can be made more receptive to them so that they will want to grow up in those communities and bring up their own families in them later.

Nick Hurd: I understand and respect my hon. Friend's point. I should make clear that the Bill is not at all prescriptive at this stage; it simply says that we need to give local communities more influence and power over what shapes them.
	The Bill makes an honest and almost certainly imperfect attempt to address what I have tried to show is a real social problem—the cost attached to the decline of our communities. It combines two of the most pressing themes in politics today, the need to give people more power and the need to pay more attention to the protection of our environment. I believe that all three main parties subscribe to those priorities. The Bill tries to give them legislative shape, so that we can begin to deliver on them. Its purpose is not merely to send a message: we want to see it on the statute book. We must therefore answer the question that the late great Eric Forth would certainly have asked were he in his place today. [Hon. Members: "Oh, he is!"] I suspect that, in some form or other, he may be.
	The question that Eric would have asked of the Bill is "Why is it essential?" The answer is, quite simply, "Because there is no coherent Government strategy to deal with the problem." Yes, there have been plenty of programmes and initiatives and plenty of documents with the word "sustainable" written on them, but they do not hang together in a coherent and focused whole.

Nick Hurd: I am not tempted to pursue the line of inquiry recommended to me. The short answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is this. The additional cost of the national allocation plans for which clause 2 provides will fall entirely to the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day. As for the community spending plans, they are all about the opportunity to redirect existing pots of money. I will deal with the bureaucracy issue later, as I suspect that the Minister may wish to raise it.

Nick Hurd: I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. I am sorry if I have given any such impression, for it would be entirely counter to my interests and instincts. I know that what is distinctive about the Bill is the cross-party consensus behind it. The hon. Gentleman's point about a long-term trend is well founded: we are talking about a trend that goes back over 20 or 25 years and spans various Governments.
	Let me return to why the Bill is essential. Its premise is that there is no coherent strategy at present, and that one is required. There have been plenty of initiatives, as I said earlier, but the whole approach has been undermined by a key failing, which has been identified by Professor Anne Hill of the London School of Economics in a document published by the Government's own Sustainable Development Commission. She wrote of the Deputy Prime Minister's sustainable communities five-year plan
	"It is essentially a top down programme which does little to encourage community involvement or ownership of the proposals... and does not propose tools for delivery to ensure long term community viability and environmental protection".
	The Bill is required because existing laws and mechanisms are not adequate.
	It is not clear that either the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill, which we will debate on Monday, or the Lyons review will give the issue of community decline enough prominence. The Lyons report will focus primarily on the financing of local government, while the Bill is essentially about its governance—although, as the Minister will undoubtedly tell us, bits of it take us further down the path of devolving power and improving local accountability.
	My Bill does not contradict Government legislation; it complements the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill by giving prominence to the issue of sustainable communities. It will give real teeth to local area agreements, and will push the Government further in the direction of devolution in which they need to travel in order to make a real difference.
	The Bill specifies four necessary steps. First, it requires central Government to give more priority to the promotion of sustainable communities, and makes them accountable for delivering a long-term action plan in support of that aim. It requires them to draw up that plan in a different, bottom-up way, with the real participation of communities and residents acting through their local authorities. Secondly, it will give local authorities the right to demand and receive a breakdown of central Government spending on local services in their areas. I emphasise the distinction between the money that is already passed to local government and the money spent by central Government directly through Departments and through their network of agencies and quangos in the communities that we represent.

Nick Hurd: I thank the hon. Lady for her helpful intervention. I am happy to confirm that important point. We are talking about money spent by central Government through their network in our communities. At present that money is invisible to us: it is extraordinarily hard to obtain proper information on how it is being spent.
	As I have said, the Bill will give local authorities the right to demand and receive a breakdown of spending on local services in their areas. The Secretary of State will be required to secure approval in Parliament for his or her definition of the services that can be carved out as being of primarily national significance. The move towards greater transparency is radical, but surely it is time to demand more transparency when it comes to the money that central Government are spending in our areas. Today it is invisible to the communities that are supposed to benefit from it. Without transparency, there can be little accountability. That must change, particularly at a time when, as we all know, people feel that they are being fully taxed and are asking "Where has the money gone?" It is time to show us the money.
	The third step in the Bill will give local authorities the right to go back to the Government with an alternative spending plan for the community allocations identified in an earlier clause.

Martin Horwood: I warmly congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his speech, and on promoting this Bill. Will the process he is describing extend to health services? In my constituency, the centralisation of mental health and maternity services is, we estimate, leading to about an extra 4,000 journeys a year being taken from Cheltenham to Gloucester and vice versa. That is taking the heart out of the community, increasing greenhouse gases and making services less local.

Nick Hurd: To be honest, I will need to think that issue through more clearly. The value of the exercise contained in the Bill is that it creates a climate in which such issues can be discussed in a more transparent way, with a much better chance of effecting change.
	Once the local authorities have exercised their right—it is a right, not a duty—to receive explanations in respect of the money being spent and to suggest to the Secretary of State alternative uses for it, step four of the Bill places a presumption on the Secretary of State to accept the local plan and requires him or her to publish any amendments, or any reasons for not accepting the plan. The Bill also requires regular reporting of the implementation of the plans. That is very important, and is of relevance to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Anne Milton).
	There are four simple steps: transparency, accountability, participation and accountability again. They are designed to give our constituents real influence over the future of our communities, without necessarily costing any more public money.

Nick Hurd: I am now straining to retain cross-party consensus on the Bill as I am receiving a lecture on the reallocation of resources from a Member representing a party that forms a Government that could stand charged of that accusation on a wider scale. However, I shall restrain myself from pursuing that, and instead address the hon. Gentleman's point by referring only to the Bill.
	The hon. Gentleman's point will be legitimately addressed by some Government legislation that will be before us shortly on improving local accountability, but let me also explain how the Bill might help the ward he mentions. If the climate in which the decisions he refers to are taken is one of budget pressures—as I suspect it is—the Bill carries the opportunity for new resources to be sprung for local authorities if they can make the case that those resources can be better directed in the way that they suggest, rather than the way the money is currently used by central Government Departments or agencies.

John Hemming: The Bill in many ways accepts what the Government have been trying to do in respect of local strategic partnerships in identifying the funding for an area and getting the statutory agencies to work together, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of its great merits is that it brings democratic accountability into that process, which is key?

Nick Hurd: The hon. Gentleman has hit the nail on the head, and it allows me to pass on to the next part of my speech, which is to address the Government's response to the Bill.
	At the heart of the Bill, I have tried to set out four simple steps designed to give our constituents real influence, but the Government have made it clear that they are not inclined to support the Bill. The Minister might argue that existing policy covers the bases—that local strategic partnerships and local area agreements are the vehicles for developing community strategies. Those mechanisms are good as far as they go, but they do not go far enough. In the conversations that I have had with local authorities, the same messages come through; I do not know whether other Members have received similar messages.
	The pooled money in these agreements is small and it will remain small as part of the whole, even on Government expansion plans, which I am sure that we will hear about. The amount of money being spent in Kent is £8 billion. The amount of money that will be pooled in terms of local area agreements is tiny. The majority of budgets are, and will still be, held separately; they are, effectively, badged and boxed in by central Government targets, and they are vulnerable to budget pressures.
	Moreover, funding streams into local area agreements appear to be inconsistent. One authority told me that its 2008 funding turned out to be half what was allocated in 2006-07. It is difficult to plan against that background of inconsistency. Any reallocation of funding under existing arrangements is a zero-sum game with winners and losers sitting around the same table, where there is no clear leadership. This Bill would strengthen that process and those mechanisms in a number of ways. Community action plans, local area agreements and local strategic partnerships would all be more effective if they were plugged into a national action plan that was itself created through a bottom-up process, if they had access to more resources that were not ring-fenced or vulnerable to budgetary pressure, if they were being clearly led by democratically elected local authorities with greater power to decide and freedom to innovate, and if they were constructed with the full engagement of the communities whom they are there to help. Last but not least, this Bill would make sure that the issue of sustainability was given the priority that it deserves in those discussions.
	The Government may also try to argue that this Bill will place burdens on both local and central Government, which was the point that I think that the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) was trying to make. The Bill may require additional resources in terms of management, be a pain in the neck for the bureaucrats and make Ministers' lives a little harder, but that feels like a tiny downside against the upside of giving our constituents a real chance to influence the future of our communities. It will be rough and raw democracy. Sharp elbows will be needed, but that is surely a better direction in which to go than continuing further down the path of centralisation and "one size fits all", when it so clearly does not.

Julia Goldsworthy: I, too, wish to congratulate the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd) on making the most of his opportunity. He laid out very well how the Bill will work and the benefits that it will bring. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) as we have worked together closely on the issue over the past few months. He mentioned how tough the public meetings on the issue have been. I had meetings in my constituency and I was surprised how many people turned up, because it is not immediately clear what the Sustainable Communities Bill might do, and it sounds a little technocratic. I did not think that it would set my constituency on fire, but the public meeting was attended by 150 people. I know that other hon. Members had even more people turn up, to the point where they had to change venue. It is interesting that the subject brings up a range of issues, and we have seen as much from the various interventions this morning.

Julia Goldsworthy: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The key problem is not necessarily opposing closures or proposing renewed services, but that people feel powerless about the decisions that are being taken. There is a law of unintended consequences—the Government may not have malicious intent, but they do not appreciate that decisions have entirely different ramifications for different communities. People find themselves coming up against a system where there is no accountability and no recourse; they cannot voice their concerns and feel confident that they will be taken on board. My hon. Friend made that point extremely well.
	The Liberal Democrats are pleased about the Bill. In the previous Session, early-day motion 641 was supported by every Liberal Democrat Member, and although I am pleased that the Bill takes forward the Bill that I presented on sustainable communities, I pay tribute to Sue Doughty, the former Member for Guildford, who did so much before I arrived in Parliament to promote the issue. Had it not been for her work, Ron Bailey would have had a much more difficult job persuading me to take on the case. I pay tribute to the local works campaign and to Sue Doughty for her work.
	We support the Bill because it puts people first and gives them a bigger say. I want to touch on three main issues: first, the Bill helps to identify and tackle community decline, and promotes greater social, economic and environmental sustainability in communities; secondly, it does so by encouraging participation by communities in decisions that affect them; and, finally, it provides accountability in areas where there is no democratic accountability. I shall give some personal examples of that point.

Julia Goldsworthy: The hon. Gentleman is right. The Bill particularly encourages the participation of groups who do not have the strongest voice, not necessarily those in deprived areas, but groups such as young people whose views may not have been heard in the past. At the public meetings in which I participated, it was striking that it was not just the usual suspects who attended. There are people with loud voices in every community who want to raise such issues, and we probably meet them regularly, but at those meetings I also met people I had never seen before. They raised some issues of which I was unaware and others on common themes, so I am confident that communities will feel that the Bill offers them a vehicle that enables their voice to be heard. As has already been said, it will create a climate in which they feel that their views will be taken on board—something which may have been more difficult for them in the past.

Julia Goldsworthy: My hon. Friend makes a good point, which demonstrates that people who campaign against the closure of a service may not always be its direct beneficiaries. For example, people could support a local primary school even if they do not have children who attend it. The point is that closures have knock-on effects. If young families cannot live and work in a community, there is an impact on the school, on the economy and public transport. There is concern about the law of unintended consequences; many Government decisions may be well intentioned but the Government do not appreciate that the ramifications will be different in every community.
	Vulnerable people can be left incredibly isolated, especially older people living in villages—in my constituency, second home ownership reaches 80 per cent. in some villages. Older people probably cannot drive and in an area with no access to public transport they have no access to shops. Vulnerable groups become even more isolated. One does not have to be a member of such a group to feel the need to champion it, which relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore).
	People feel powerless. People in my constituency in villages with 80 per cent. second home ownership have no power to do anything about that situation. There are no planning controls on the number of second homes in an area—an issue that was raised time and again in the public meetings and in other representations I have received. People feel that the Bill offers an opportunity for the Government to enable local communities to take such power. The Bill is an enabling measure for Government action.

Anne Milton: Does my hon. Friend agree that, regardless of whether decisions on local NHS services could be included within the Bill's remit, one of the reasons it has such fantastic cross-party support is that the public's appetite for local decision making has never been greater? The threats of closures and the downgrading of acute services, such as at the Royal Surrey County hospital in Guildford, have heightened the public's concern about local services and their understanding that they need local NHS services if they are to have the sustainable communities that they so badly want.

Nick Herbert: I am sorry to have to disagree rather strongly with the hon. Gentleman, but that attitude is tantamount to saying that we should not bother to take account of people's views. There is great dissatisfaction with policing in many communities. If people do not attend meetings, it is because they sense that the meetings are purposeless and because they are not properly consultative and give the public no real say on the improvement of policing or other services in their communities?

Andrew Gwynne: May I give the hon. Gentleman a further example of good practice when consulting local people? Recently, Greater Manchester police has established in every ward in Tameside a PACT—police and communities together—meeting, which is open to the general public, in which ward councillors, the neighbourhood policing team, Tameside patrollers and home watch co-ordinators discuss the problems in the ward and put together an action plan. In the following month's meeting, the police have to explain to the public exactly what they have done.

Kevan Jones: My hon. Friend's constituency produces very fine cheese, too. My constituency is similar to his, as it contains former mining villages. Some of the problems in those former mining communities need large solutions, and require difficult and tough decisions that sometimes divide the local community. Does he share my concern about the Bill, which is that although it is well intentioned, it comes down to the idea—we have heard this from many Members—that everyone will somehow come to a consensus and agree? However, on occasions, the fabric and grit of local politics is disagreement, and tough decisions having to be taken.

David Drew: I am sorry to have missed the early part of my hon. Friend's remarks, and I am sorry that he does not support all aspects of the Bill. To my mind, it is a misunderstanding to see it as a top-down measure. The Bill provides the framework, but it is up to local areas to decide their spending commitments, given that central Government decides how each local area is expected to perform. That is why we elect central Government. Does my hon. Friend agree?

Wayne David: That is not made at all clear in the Bill. Running through it is an extremely bureaucratic process, as I have outlined, and a naive belief that local empowerment is sufficient. We cannot ignore the existence of central Government, which is democratically elected and has a set of political priorities. There is a political process, as well as local empowerment.

Wayne David: My hon. Friend makes a good point that serves to reinforce the muddle that runs through the Bill. There is a contradiction between the good intentions and their practical implementation in terms of the reality of politics at a national and a local level.
	I want to turn to a more specific concern about Wales, which is covered in clause 9. In essence, it says that the Bill would apply to England and Wales and that in its application to Wales it would have effect with certain modifications. The first modification is:
	(a) for each reference to the Secretary of State there shall be substituted a reference to the National Assembly for Wales".
	Is the National Assembly for Wales in favour of that? I asked earlier whether there had been consultation with the Welsh Assembly Government but did not receive a detailed response. On the radio this morning, the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd) said that he had spoken to the people of Wales, but I want to see a submission by the Welsh Assembly Government. Have they been consulted? If so, what is its view, and where is its formal, considered written response? That should have been put in the Vote Office before this debate, or it should be put there before the end of it. Otherwise, it is—dare I say it—the worst kind of imperialism. It is us as a Parliament saying to the Welsh Assembly: "We think this will be good for you. We have decided that this is in your interests so we are giving you this power." That is not what devolution is all about.

Kevan Jones: Without wanting to get into the internal politics of Wales, what does my hon. Friend think would happen if the plan was approved by the local community in Wales and by the Secretary of State but was strongly objected to by the Welsh Assembly? How would that lead to the efficient delivery of services in local communities in Wales?

Wayne David: That is a good question. It would be extremely unhelpful if we knew. We have seen examples in the recent past whereby legislation was agreed in this House and there was a strong feeling among the people of Wales that it was not required. Going back to the 1970s and 1980s, that is precisely why we had the groundswell in Wales for devolution in the first place. In 1997, there was a referendum and the people of Wales voted in favour of devolution so that they themselves could decide what legislation they wished to have on the statute book within certain confines. A clear delineation has been made in terms of what powers are devolved and what powers are not devolved.

Andrew Dismore: A similar issue arises in relation to the London Assembly and the London Mayor, who were elected after a referendum of the people of London. Picking up the point that the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) made about local policing plans, policing is a responsibility of the London Mayor in terms of setting a budget for the Metropolitan police. Does my hon. Friend think that problems could arise in similar circumstances as regards what the London Mayor is trying to achieve in improving policing in the capital?

Wayne David: With all due respect, I am not a lawyer; all I have is a degree of common sense. If something is submitted to any individual—the Secretary of State or anybody else—for a decision, it is up to him or her to decide yes or no; that is what approval is all about. My point is that if a plan was rejected, that would create an extremely bad feeling in the locality if people had been given the impression that they could come together to create a set of priorities that central Government would automatically rubber-stamp.

Kevan Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that what we have just heard is precisely what we have come to expect from the Liberal Democrats, who often allow people to believe that they have control over their communities, but then make promises that cannot be delivered. Does my hon. Friend agree that the worst thing that can be done in local politics is to raise people's aspirations and hopes that they will get something useful, but at the end of the day to take them away. I well know from Liberal Democrat leaflets that they often look both—or even three or four—ways at the same time.

Andrew Dismore: Staying with clause 6(1), the problem with the clause is that it is drafted on the assumption that the Secretary of State will rubber stamp what is put forward. The fact that only three months are given for approval of what could be 400 plans shows that, under the Bill, the Secretary of State is not to be given any sensible consideration whatever. Let me put it to my hon. Friend that the Bill amounts to a bureaucratic process—I do not think that anyone would deny that it creates a lot of bureaucracy—and does not allow us to deal with an occasion on which a Secretary of State would refuse approval. It provides no mechanism for what happens after a decision is taken under clause 6(1). What happens then? No provision is made for reference back or for revision of the plan; no provision is made for a negotiating process to resolve differences. That amounts to a bureaucratic lacuna in a very bureaucratic Bill.

Wayne David: Once again, my hon. Friend makes very good points.
	In order to make some progress, I would like to move on. I have already spoken about Wales and opened up wider considerations, but I would like to speak about something else—the different way Scotland is treated in comparison with Wales. If we look at clause 13(3), we see that it clearly states:
	"This Act extends to Scotland only in respect of matters which are reserved in accordance with Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998".
	That is very clear, but my question is why a similar stipulation is not made to Wales. Wales has a different devolution settlement from Scotland, but the current settlement is not fully taken into account and neither is the new Government of Wales Act 2006. That is important. Under the 2006 Act, which will be in place after the Welsh Assembly elections on 3 May, the Assembly will be given legislative powers for the first time. If we approved that legislation we would not be taking into account previous legislation that the House had approved. There will then be two Acts in place that are, to some extent at least, contradictory. When it comes to the spirit of the legislation, I imagine that the Welsh Assembly would take an extremely dim view of having a second-class status assigned to it under a Bill that is supposed to take forward the principle of devolution. It is a contradiction in terms. That is another of my concerns.

Kevan Jones: There is provision missing from the Bill for a conciliation service for disputes between not only local authorities and the Secretary of State but between the Secretary of State and Wales. However, even if the measure included such a clause, would not it lead to administrative gridlock and thus fail to deliver the laudable aims that the clause 1(2) outlines? Could not it lead to services grinding to a halt in some places?

Wayne David: That is a helpful intervention. I will leave the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), who has mentioned quite a few of them. Certainly, there are nowhere near as many community councils in Wales as parish councils in England. Nevertheless, that is the tier of government that is closest to the people.
	When I was a member of a community council, although we had a good attendance at our meetings and debated all manner of issues, one of the great frustrations that I and other councillors experienced was that the local authority above us seldom took any notice whatever. The community council was usually charged with making sure that footpaths were open and giving small grants to various community organisations. Worthy as those things are, they are not enough. If we are to involve local people in parish or community councils, we should have sufficient faith in them to ensure that attendance is worthwhile. I commend the Bill's reference to parish councils, but more emphasis should be given to them. If we compare some of the ideas in the Bill with those in the White Paper to which I referred, we see that the Bill ought to take some lessons from that White Paper.

Wayne David: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for reinforcing the point that I have made.
	Having referred to the Government's White Paper, I want to refer to the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill. In this debate, health has been referred to in a slightly misleading way, which deviated from the thrust of the Bill before us. Nevertheless, the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill represents a significant step forward in the devolution of power and public involvement, which is the subject of the debate. I cite that Bill because I firmly believe that we cannot give the impression that the issue of sustainable communities is the only one on the agenda in terms of public involvement and public empowerment; rather, it is one aspect of a broader debate. It makes sense for us to debate the principles enshrined in both documents, and I have tried to compare and contrast them in my modest contribution. In the Government's White Paper and the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill, those points have been given more consideration than, for example, the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Julia Goldsworthy) has given them.

Andrew Dismore: My hon. Friend has made the important point that we should be debating the principles of the Bill. As I think we have made clear, none of us disagrees with the principles, but we must also debate the practicalities, which my hon. Friend has done very effectively so far. Perhaps the most ill-thought-out of the practicalities is clause 13(5), which states
	"This Act shall come into force on the very day on which it is passed."
	That is a most unusual way of implementing a Bill. What does my hon. Friend think the implications would be for staffing of the Department that must deal with all the different plans, and for local authorities?

Andrew Gwynne: I have three examples in the Stockport part of my constituency of where the council has ignored the views of the local community on a village green application, on a proposal to build a new primary school on a former landfill site and over the closure of the local swimming baths. That has left the community of Reddish feeling as though its views are completely ignored and it is an irrelevant part of the borough of Stockport. Unfortunately, the ballot box is not the answer, because the councillors in that part of Reddish support the local community. It is the Liberal Democrat council that has done all that. People are completely disaffected and cannot change the situation.

Celia Barlow: The United Kingdom is a nation of rich diversity. We can be proud that its regions, towns and cities have their own specific characteristics. Our diversity, while we maintain our United Kingdom, defines us as a nation. However, the growing trend of globalisation presents us with many local and national challenges. It is at a local level that a true sense of community can best be achieved.
	Community is the bedrock on which our society is formed and we carry forward that principle with every policy that we make. We remain the only people who are true to the principle of inclusion: the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one. In the modern world, a sense of community is more important than ever in our society. A strong sense of local community is also essential to tackle the problems of social exclusion. The Government can be proud of their achievements in that area. We have retained our commitment to it, despite the Opposition's claims that such interest in the well-being of our society is merely a gimmick designed to grab short-term headlines. Since 1997, we have consistently moved the problems of social exclusion further up the political agenda. It is only due to our Government that we now have a Minister for Social Exclusion, which shows that we have a modern Government working with the needs of a modern society.
	Our Government have already done much to develop the idea of community in our society. Since 1997, local government has received a 39 per cent. real terms increase in investment, the result of which can be seen throughout my constituency through the renewal of children's play areas, the relaying of pavements to increase accessibility to our footpaths for the disabled, and the development of an efficient environmentally friendly bus service throughout the whole constituency. Such efforts and commitments made by Labour councils and our Labour Government will enable communities to be sustainable in the years and decades to come.

Celia Barlow: I agree, and I congratulate that administration on its initiative. An example in my constituency is the Frank Gehry-designed King Alfred development, in which affordable housing is accompanied by a sports hall and swimming pool, with energy requirements met by combined heat and power. In fact, most of the five sustainability indicators in the Bill have already been addressed in my constituency with local procurement, as well as recycling and congestion measures. I believe that the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd) is sincere in his ambitions, as I have the honour of serving with him on the Environmental Audit Committee but, in its current form, the Bill could increase the bureaucratic burden, not just on local authorities but on central Government. I fear that his proposal that Whitehall should draw up an individual action plan for each region would decrease local autonomy, so I urge him to reconsider it.
	One of my concerns was highlighted by the exchanges between the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs and my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones). Despite the Bill's lengthy history, it still contains dangerous ambiguities that must be ironed out in Committee, should it proceed that far. For example, what exactly is the meaning of
	"increasing participation in civic and political activity"?
	That is a worthy aim with which no one in the House would disagree, but it could mean one thing to one man and something else to another. I hope that all those problems will be resolved before the Bill reaches its remaining stages.
	The Bill duplicates some existing measures. The Government White Paper, "Strong and Prosperous Communities", provides local authorities with greater autonomy, enabling them to make key decisions in their region. The Bill, however, has many merits, and I applaud the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood for the personal interest that he takes in the matter. Many of my hon. Friends agree with him, particularly with his belief that local shops and producers are essential to maintain a sense of community. The concept of community and social inclusiveness is, and always has been, one of the cornerstones of our society. Given their initial scepticism about the need for a Minister for Social Exclusion, I am heartened that the Opposition now take the issue as seriously as the Government. I welcome many of the Bill's proposals, and I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider them seriously and pursue them in whatever legislative form he considers suitable. I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), who has called for the spirit of the Bill to be incorporated in an all-party measure, as the problems that our communities face today can best be tackled when all parties work for a greater sense of community for all.

Martin Linton: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in many cases inner city high streets are the new villages, because they are populated by people who do not want to go further away to a supermarket but want to have a baker's shop, a fishmonger and a butcher on their doorstep, in their high street? The problem is not, as it is in many villages, depopulation, but rents that are too high because of the sheer popularity of those streets. However, it comes down to the same thing—it is difficult for people to get what they want, and what people in every village want, which is a high street that enables them to shop in independently owned local food shops serving local produce.

Richard Benyon: The point that derives from that is that it is easy for people on higher incomes to travel to purchase the goods that they would otherwise have bought from those shops, while people on lower incomes suffer. Too often in modern life it is tougher to be poor, sick, old or mentally ill in relatively prosperous areas such as parts of the hon. Gentleman's constituency and parts of mine than it is in more deprived areas.
	In talking about ghost town Britain, we often, rightly, refer to the loss of shops and post offices, but it is also about services. That has recently been brought home to me in my constituency. The local magistrates bench used to sit in Lambourn and in Hungerford as well as in Newbury but, perhaps for entirely proper reasons, it no longer sits in Lambourn—where the accused and everyone else used to help to set the chairs up, which was probably not the best way of running a court—but has withdrawn to Newbury. Now, there is pressure from above—from central Government—to move that court service from Newbury to an all-purpose court in Reading. That is probably at a more beneficial cost to the taxpayer, but it is symptomatic of the problem addressed in the Bill. Not only does the community in Newbury suffer the loss of a civic entity, and the proportionate loss of a sense of self-worth, but, more importantly, the people of that community are much more remote from access to that service. Where does that leave, for example, a victim of crime living in a remote village in my constituency who currently has to travel to Newbury to give evidence but in future, under the proposals that are being pushed forward, will have to travel a great distance to Reading?

Oliver Letwin: There is another answer to the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones). Under the Bill, if a local community thought that it was a priority to keep a local magistrates court open, and if the Lord Chancellor's department thought that it would save money by doing so, it would be open to the local community to propose as part of its plan a subsidy scheme to keep the court local.

Richard Benyon: As always, my right hon. Friend puts it so much more eloquently than I could, and I entirely agree with his point.
	Throughout the country, other services are being lost—for example, with ambulance stations being removed in some communities. We have always been told that all these organisations are for our greater good, but when something like that happens, as it did in Hungerford 10 years ago, we see that the result is often a less than perfect service. In order to comply with Government targets on response times, it is much better for ambulances to be hanging around big urban areas such as Reading—and the people of Hungerford and other smaller towns across the country lose out.
	Whether we call them "reforms", "reorganisations", "reconfigurations" or whatever, they are always driven from the top down and they always militate against local people in smaller communities. They are too often done for the convenience of the organisation rather than for the people it serves.
	I would like to comment on an earlier intervention by the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) in which he spoke about traffic and congestion. I shall provide one example of how the Bill will help to resolve some of those problems. In Newbury some years ago, there was a movement plan. Consultants were brought in and a plan to improve the movement of traffic around the town was developed. A presentation was made, at which all the great and good were present, and everyone agreed that it was a good plan. At the end of the meeting, however, an official stood up and explained that the plan had to go to the Government office for the south-east and to the South East England regional assembly to have their imprimaturs put on it. I asked myself—a lowly citizen in those days before I was elected here—why on earth we live in a world in which a regional government, either the Government office or the regional assembly, has to tell us how the Bone Lane roundabout in the middle of Newbury is configured. That is ludicrous.
	The Bill provides an opportunity because, under it, local communities can be empowered to do things for themselves, which is why I commend it to the House. I could raise many other issues, but I want to give other hon. Members time to speak. We must pay attention to the enormous breadth of organisations that support the Bill. We must remember that hon. Members on both sides of the House support it. Ultimately, what it is all about is trusting local people to make the right decisions for their communities.

Tim Farron: The Minister will recall that, before the last general election, the Deputy Prime Minister ran a consultation road show on regional devolution, for which there was not great enthusiasm. However, the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd) has introduced a Bill that has come from a grassroots campaign for which the enthusiasm across the country is clear, as has been reflected in meetings held in my constituency, for example, in Kendal. Surely the Minister should embrace that enthusiasm, which stands in contrast to the failure of the Deputy Prime Minister's campaign before the election.

Oliver Letwin: I understand the Minister's desire to make progress, but I think it important for us to be clear about the nature of the Bill. It does not permit those in charge of local action plans to seek more money, but it does permit them to reorder priorities: that is, indeed, its intent. In any case in which a Minister believes that the postcode lottery is the side of the argument that wins over localism, it is open to him to define the matter as being of primarily national significance. I do not think, therefore, that the Minister can use the argument that there is a problem with local authorities' prioritising over matters that Ministers will have already have accepted to be of primarily local significance.

Phil Woolas: I would add to the right hon. Gentleman's premise the right of Parliament, as well as national Government, to have a say in the debate. The proposal to identify public money that is spent locally, some on national imperatives and some on local priorities, is one of the Bill's strengths. I believe that our local area agreement policy moves substantially in that direction, notwithstanding the scepticism—not cynicism—shown by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood.
	In the current financial year, half a billion pounds of public money—national money—is being pooled through local area agreements. Under the current proposals, in the next spending period that amount will rise to some £5 billion, pooled through local area agreements and thus subject to the prioritisation decisions of the locally elected representatives. Incidentally, that represents a larger sum than the revenue support grant that we redistribute through the formula.
	That is the scale of the change in relation to local area agreements that is heralded by the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill, which we will debate on Monday. Our LAA policy will allow the identification of money in different areas, an approach pioneered by Kent county council, my own council and others. It will also allow the mandatory outcomes, as the jargon has it—that on which national Government and, through national Government, Parliament can insist—not just to be radically reduced in each area, but to be tailored specifically for that area. We expect each area to have about 35 goals, or objectives, in the achievement of which the council and its partners will have a statutory duty to co-operate. Those 35 targets, however, will not be the same in all areas in order to reflect the differences between areas—between, say, the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish in Greater Manchester and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes in north-east Lincolnshire.
	I believe that our policy is the best way of squaring the circles created by the paradoxes I have described, and it is strongly supported by the Local Government Association on a cross-party basis. We have spent nearly two years—which some would say is too long—in developing that policy. The role that the Bill gives to the Secretary of State, although probably well-intended, fails to deal with the difficulty that would inevitably result from local action plans that would either require more money to meet local priorities or, through local decisions, seek to gain control of moneys identified for national priorities. I am thinking of moneys such as benefits budgets or health budgets. There is an advantage to identifying what those moneys are, but the important question of how one decides on prioritisation then arises. I fear that, because of the way that the Bill is constructed, it would inevitably lead to the Secretary of State vetoing decisions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly said. I would not have a problem with the current Government having that veto, but I suggest that future Secretaries of State might not support the localist agenda. Members should take that important point into account—and Liberal Democrat Members in particular should do so.

Phil Woolas: If the House will allow me, I will first put forward some arguments and then take as many interventions as I can; I do not want to be accused of delaying the debate.
	Under our approach, each area has three key documents. The sustainable community strategy, which sets out the overall vision for a given area, is already in place, and Members in all parts of the House will doubtless engage with their councils and constituents in that regard. Secondly, the local development framework—what we used to call the planning report; however, the framework goes much further than that—takes forward the spatial element of that vision. The third document is the local area agreement, which I have already described. The first two documents are already embodied in legislation, and the Bill before the House on Monday will—if the House agrees to its Second Reading—strengthen the third. Placing a statutory duty on public sector agencies to co-operate with those plans will take the ability of local elected representatives to influence their areas and the various priorities much further down the line.

Phil Woolas: The right hon. Gentleman is correct. The Bill does not mention that issue, but this is a good opportunity for me to counter the story in this morning's papers, which was prompted by his colleagues, whose calculations of potential council tax figures are based, in part, on the suggestion that we will create more parishes. The right hon. Gentleman has a point about this being a Second Reading debate, but I would ask the Opposition parties whether they will give a commitment that if the Bill were to become law and local priorities were not met, because the Government, supported by Parliament, felt that it would be wrong to localise certain aspects, there would not be a call for further taxation to meet those priorities. Secondly, can they guarantee that no criticism would be made of the amounts of money raised by local authorities through council taxes as the result of the need to implement those plans? As the right hon. Gentleman said, it is the money that causes the difficulty.
	I have further questions about the Bill. How will the arrangements fit with local accountability for other public services? The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) mentioned the police. The police authority in his constituency is accountable to the county councils—the combined police authority. Indeed, the chair of the police authority is Councillor Peter Jones, a county councillor. The police's local priorities are already governed by local authority representatives. The debate behind that, which we are having today, is the feeling that many people have that they have no influence on that, but that is why I believe that the problem is best addressed by considering the empowerment of local elected representatives as well as forums such as community calls for action. However, the measures in the Bill may be unnecessary in the light of the changes that have already been made in the local structures and other proposed changes.
	We have already mentioned the Secretary of State's role and the Bill may be criticised for not taking into account other local government legislation, not only the Bill on Monday. A major issue of policy that relates to this Bill is the performance framework. The Government's intention is that the performance framework—the auditing of the performance of local areas, which will move from the comprehensive performance assessment to an assessment of the outcomes under the sustainable communities plan in the local area agreement—will involve a radical shift towards local accountability and will be backed up by new measures on overview and scrutiny.
	The measures that we shall debate on Monday are the other side of the coin of this debate. There are some deficiencies in the Bill, as well as some unintended consequences. As it stands, the measure would centralise rather than devolve, because of the role given to the Secretary of State.
	If it is the will of the House that the Bill goes into Committee, I give an undertaking that we shall engage with all seriousness in the debate. I know that the House will reciprocate in that process, should it take place. Today's debate has been useful in highlighting points raised in the campaign and by Members outside this place. I shall answer some of the questions put by Members today.
	The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood, who moved the Bill so eloquently, talked about pooled funding through local area agreements and local targets. I think that I have answered that point.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on his campaign; indeed, I believe that he is still an elected parish councillor—

Martin Caton: I am very grateful for that. The problem is that planning inspectors from different Government Departments all around the country are ruling that building regulations are a maximum standard, even though, as I have said, Ministers say that they should be a minimum standard.
	Let me provide one other example. Last summer, Bedford borough council produced its draft core strategy and rural issues plan, which included a policy to reduce CO2 emissions by 10 per cent. more than building regulations allowed in certain developments. The Government office for the east of England objected on the grounds that the current planning system did not permit the setting of energy efficiency standards. That needs changing and this Bill will deliver that change.
	I would like to pay tribute to the work that the Government have already done in moving forward to achieve their objective of zero carbon homes within 10 years. The code for sustainable homes provides a good and useful measuring stick and I look forward to something above the lower star ratings becoming mandatory in the not too distant future. In the meantime, if my Bill became an Act, the code could be used by local planning authorities to provide the higher benchmark standards that they might want to specify in their policies.
	It is right to give due priority to housing. As the Minister for Housing and Planning said, our homes account for "more than a quarter" of our carbon emissions. That is about 40 million tonnes. We also need to be looking to higher standards of energy efficiency and more and better use of low-energy carbon generation in other forms of development. The Bill will enable local planning authorities to require those higher standards in non-residential building projects.
	I also welcome the Government's intentions in the draft policy statement on climate change, published in December, which is now out for consultation. However, in respect of the main subject covered by the Bill, that statement will, if not amended, exacerbate the existing problem. I know that it is a matter of concern for local authorities up and down the country, which I am sure will be evidenced in the consultation process. As currently worded, the policy statement makes it explicit that—except for exceptional circumstances and only in a limited way after certain criteria are met—councils will not be able to set energy-efficiency standards higher than building regulations. If that is not changed, the adoption of the policy statement will mean that most councils will not even attempt to set higher standards for energy efficiency in their planning policies. It would not be worth jumping through all those hoops to achieve what, in the end, would make a very modest difference.
	It would be much better, I suggest, to adopt the approach in the Bill, which reflects Government objectives in dealing with climate change and Government policy on freeing local councils to deliver sustainable communities in the broadest sense of the description.
	The Bill has wide support throughout England and Wales and its objectives are backed by many individual councils, the Local Government Association and the Welsh Local Government Association. It is supported by all 35 organisations that form the Sustainable Energy Partnership, by the Royal Institute of British Architects and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. I mentioned the help that the Association for the Conservation of Energy gave me and I must also thank the Socialist Environment and Resources Association. It is an affiliate of the Labour party and its new president is Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. It has worked assiduously to spread the word about the Bill.
	The Bill is not party political but a common sense measure, which hon. Members from all parties have sponsored, and it is supported across the political spectrum. Yesterday, the count for the number of hon. Members who had signed the early-day motion to support the Bill's objectives stood at 224. That shows the strength of feeling on the subject in the House. In turn, that reflects the strength of feeling in local authorities throughout England and Wales.
	I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government can demonstrate that enthusiasm for the Bill stretches to embrace even the Government. However, I know that some officials in the Department for Communities and Local Government have argued hard against it. I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise that the measure is in line with Government policy. If it is talked out, there is a danger that that will convey the message that the Government say the right things but fail to exploit the opportunity for genuine action. That would amount to an unnecessary own goal.

Phil Woolas: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) on securing the Bill and the opportunity to debate, albeit briefly, such important issues.
	I know that my hon. Friend has promoted the Bill because of his deep concern about climate change and his strong commitment to tackling carbon emissions. That reflects a lifetime commitment to protecting our environment. Suffice it to say that the Government share that concern and commitment to act decisively.
	My hon. Friend rightly highlights the important role of the planning systems and of local authorities. When used positively, planning can help in securing enduring progress against the UK's emissions targets by exerting direct influence on energy use and emissions and bringing together and encouraging action by others. The climate change planning policies, on which we are consulting, put the aim of securing the highest viable standards of resource and energy efficiency and reducing carbon emissions at the heart of what the Government expect from planning. My hon. Friend's intentions therefore very much reflect those of the Government.
	We have important concerns about the Bill, however, and we must take those seriously. I hope that the new measures that I shall announce today and the existing policy already implemented will convince my hon. Friend that his Bill is not necessary. Although he might be disappointed in the short term, I hope that he is delighted in the medium to long term, as his work and that of others has had significant influence. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning wanted me to share those comments.
	I want to consider the scale of the problem that we face. I do not know about other hon. Members, but yesterday, when my constituents were facing hurricane-strength winds and life was being endangered—tragically, 10 people lost their lives—I found it more than ironic, indeed sad, that the national media were debating a reality TV programme, however serious the issues that it raised. If there are still sceptics on climate change, I advise them to follow the advice of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and to look at the scientific evidence of rapid climate change, the role that human activity is playing in it, and the threat that it poses to our quality of our life. The evidence is now overwhelming.
	The recent Stern review brought into sharp relief the need for urgent international action to prevent environmental catastrophe. It showed that taking action now is cheaper than waiting to deal with the impact of climate change. Today, not only scientific opinion but the British public at large overwhelmingly recognise the reality of climate change Stern was clear: even though the UK is responsible for but a small share of global emissions—2 per cent., I think—we cannot afford to delay domestic action while we wait for an international consensus. We must also show world leadership.
	The Government are committed to responding to that challenge both at home and abroad. Internationally, we will continue to push for the agreement of all countries to halt and then reverse greenhouse gas emissions. Domestically, our climate change Bill will enshrine in law our commitment to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 60 per cent. by 2050. That is an ambitious but necessary target. Meeting it means looking hard at how we produce energy, how we use transport, how we harness technology, and how we use the planning system.
	In the run-up to Christmas, on 13 December, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government published a groundbreaking package of measures to tackle carbon emissions from new development and other measures to help secure sustainable development in our communities. We have called the package "Towards a zero carbon future" because that is where we need to be. Our proposals will make a substantial contribution to getting there, and quickly. Many commentators are calling this a "green package". They are right, but the package also forms a key element of our desire to deliver better, more sustainable communities.
	So what is this package? First, it includes the code for sustainable homes: a new national standard for application across England for sustainable design and construction of new homes. By integrating elements of this voluntary code into new homes and obtaining assessments against the code, developers will be able to obtain a star rating for any new home to demonstrate its environmental performance. That will provide valuable information to home buyers, and offer builders a tool with which to distinguish between themselves in sustainability terms.
	Alongside the code, we have launched our consultation on the timetable for incorporation of the energy and carbon standards set out in the code in future building regulations. Our proposals, which are set out in "Building a Greener Future: Towards Zero Carbon Development", constitute a framework of progressive changes to building regulations to achieve zero-carbon new homes by 2016. We believe that that will cut carbon emissions by about 7 million tonnes a year by 2050, which is equivalent to around 20 per cent. of housing emissions—or, to put it another way, more than the total amount of emissions from the eight largest English cities outside London.
	Of course there will be benefits for those who live in such homes because the energy efficiency of those homes will be higher. They will be cooler in summer and warmer in winter. Money will be saved for families, and our planet will be helped through extensive use of renewable sources of electricity. There are already examples, such as Bow Zed, which demonstrate what a zero-carbon development can look like and how it can work for ordinary families.
	To realise our goals, we propose the introduction of new standards in three steps. The first step, in 2010, will mean that homes must be built to the very highest energy-efficiency standards. The second and third steps, in 2013 and 2016, will require increasing use of renewable and low-carbon energy supplies. We recognise that there will be additional costs, but the staged introduction of the changes will give business time to adjust and, importantly, innovate, to drive them down. The Stern report demonstrated what the real costs would be if those steps were not taken, an important point made also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower. To help to stimulate the market, the Chancellor has announced that he will exempt zero-carbon homes from stamp duty.
	We propose that these targets should apply only to homes at this stage, not to all buildings. We will be looking next at the best approach to reducing carbon emissions from the non-residential sector. We are also consulting on how to secure more water efficiency in new buildings. However, I want now to focus on the final part of the package, which is of most significance to the debate. I refer to the draft planning policy statement on planning and climate change, on which we are already consulting.
	The PPS sets out how planning, in providing for the new homes, jobs and infrastructure needed by communities—I hope that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) has noted the inclusion of infrastructure, because he has often lobbied and argued on the subject—should help to shape places that will have lower carbon emissions, and will be resilient to the climate change that I am afraid is now accepted as inevitable. It sets out a clear and challenging role for regional and local spatial strategies, which are the workhorses of the planning system. Those strategies are expected to help shape the framework for energy supply in their areas.
	At local level, development plan documents prepared by local authorities will be expected to set policies on the provision of low-carbon and renewable sources of energy. Those policies will provide the platform necessary for securing and complementing the increasingly high levels of energy efficiency required by the building regulations.
	We expect this provision to be "significant" , to reflect the full potential of local opportunities without undermining the new development needed in communities. In the interim period, before plans are adopted, we propose that planning authorities should require a standard of 10 per cent. That is the floor standard; we can expect much more.
	The approach that we have set out reflects the important role of local government in leading, shaping and supporting regional and local strategies that help the move to low-carbon living. Appropriate technologies and their potential will, of course, vary from place to place. We believe that judgments on how new development should integrate with local potential, and the vision for securing and delivering that potential, should be local rather than national, and should form part of wider consideration of the infrastructure and services needed to secure sustainable communities.
	We know that many local authorities want to move quickly to ensure that new development delivers higher environmental standards. The planning policy statement—PPS—encourages them to engage constructively and imaginatively with developers to secure the delivery of sustainable buildings, and recognises that there will be local circumstances that justify higher standards for particular developments.

Phil Woolas: In fairness, the Government's policy and the debate on this policy area require time, and it would be irresponsible of a Government who have problems with a private Member's Bill not to oppose it and not to set out our alternative ways forward. I believe that the alternatives that we propose meet the policy objectives of my hon. Friend the Member for Gower, and I want to continue putting on the record what are the Government's policies in this regard.
	Through the PPS and the code for sustainable homes, and by setting a timetable for further strengthening of building regulations, the Government aim to have a set of policies that provides clarity on the framework for achieving zero-carbon development. That will provide greater certainty for the development industry and other related businesses, and support cost-effective solutions without over-regulating the sector.
	It is important to be clear about the relationship between planning policies, which through development control regulate the location and siting of development, building regulations, which deal with conservation of fuel and power, health and safety, accessibility in buildings, and the code, which addresses sustainability in homes.
	The intentions of my hon. Friend's Bill echo our proposals. However, we are not convinced that the Bill as drafted would deliver the desired outcomes. That is not a criticism of my hon. Friend, but it is worth remembering that local planning authorities already have the ability to set requirements on renewable energy through their development plans. By indicating that local planning authorities may include such measures, the Bill could be seen as a step back from the statement made by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning in June last year. That set out the Government's expectation that local planning authorities should include policies in their development plans. That statement has been reinforced and developed in the PPS, which includes specific policy on the need to ensure that a significant proportion of energy supply is gained on-site and renewably, and/or from a decentralised renewable or low-carbon energy supply.
	 It being half past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
	 Debate to be resumed on Friday 23 February.